They better have female soldiers...

[PuFu 4600]

Why were none of these a concern in arma 2 despite being able to take control of the female avatars?

Why is it with the concept of female characters being as capable of male characters, suddenly all sorts of things matter that nobody previously mentioned or cared about?

It is not a real concern.

But if BIS was to implemented, i am sure it will do it the "old" way anyways.

In A2, you can take control of the vanilla female avatars, but IRC they do have a different skeleton, and they cannot use weapons whatsoever.

The fact that i never mentioned the simple fact that women have different sizes and anatomies, doesn't mean i was thinking any differently.

[nodunit 397]

Female chars in A2 were very limited and had some weird animations. Addons\mods with female chars exist and I can't complain about other peoples work, take it or leave it.

As capable or not, sexism, and things like this (weighting)? I don't care. But I see it as a great effort to minimal gain and, as example of every MMO out there (or any game with female chars), as soon mods start to pop up you will see nudes retex or people running around with minimal clothes like it or not.

Summary: Is out? Good. Is in? Better.

True though that is probably more due to some of the A2 animations themselves, such as running without any weapon..that odd errr.....flailing run, this was mostly in relation to the default rather than addons.

People could have made nudity textures already, since we don't see the texture another person is using, what does it matter? But if it's that much of an issue then I guess we could always balance it out by having men in bikini's if it's really that big of a deal :P

It is not a real concern.

But if BIS was to implemented, i am sure it will do it the "old" way anyways.

In A2, you can take control of the vanilla female avatars, but IRC they do have a different skeleton, and they cannot use weapons whatsoever.

The fact that i never mentioned the simple fact that women have different sizes and anatomies, doesn't mean i was thinking any differently.

Saddly I'm willing to bet on that as well, much as I hate to..I'd rather them not waste time on female assets if they can't do jack squat in terms of gameplay.

Fair enough, just genuine curiosity.

I've been curious about the reasons people are for or against this on terms of gameplay and mechanics as opposed to real life statistics and things of that nature.

Before voice was so very little and I'm wondering if that is due the fact that female characters were mechanically unsound as opposed to being a larger part now or if its..a myriad of other reasons.

Cares about the inner workings are difficult to dredge up amongst the see of the back and forth based on real world militaries, statistics and so on.

It's as though people get stuck on that one single track, eyes centered on "reality" when this is really more of a gameplay feature than anything else.

Reliant moreso on the person that uses the feature as opposed to those that see, because then it could be categorized with the "male soldiers having female voices" on VON.

Edited June 5, 2013 by NodUnit

[PN11A 2]

True though that is probably more due to some of the A2 animations themselves, such as running without any weapon..that odd errr.....flailing run, this was mostly in relation to the default rather than addons.

People could have made nudity textures already, since we don't see the texture another person is using, what does it matter? But if it's that much of an issue then I guess we could always balance it out by having men in bikini's if it's really that big of a deal :P

Saddly I'm willing to bet on that as well, much as I hate to..I'd rather them not waste time on female assets if they can't do jack squat in terms of gameplay.

Fair enough, just genuine curiosity.

I've been curious about the reasons people are for or against this on terms of gameplay and mechanics as opposed to real life statistics and things of that nature.

Before voice was so very little and I'm wondering if that is due the fact that female characters were mechanically unsound as opposed to being a larger part now or if its..a myriad of other reasons.

Cares about the inner workings are difficult to dredge up amongst the see of the back and forth based on real world militaries, statistics and so on.

It's as though people get stuck on that one single track, eyes centered on "reality" when this is really more of a gameplay feature than anything else.

Reliant moreso on the person that uses the feature as opposed to those that see, because then it could be categorized with the "male soldiers having female voices" on VON.

In all honesty I do not think that is the case. It seems from what I have read lately that the only time that it becomes an issue is when someone tries to justify it using reality. If it was proposed simply as "lets add females because that would be fun" Its a completely different argument. If you say "lets add females because its more realistic" it then is open to discussion because it is trying to base it on facts. No one can fault you for what you like, no one can dispute what you like but when you set an argument based on facts its open season. Do I care if females are in the game? No. Just for fun im going to look into how many females have been to free fall, and combat dive school.

[Smurf 12]

But if it's that much of an issue then I guess we could always balance it out by having men in bikini's if it's really that big of a deal :P

To the addon request thread!

[pathetic_berserker 4]

[/b]

In all honesty I do not think that is the case. It seems from what I have read lately that the only time that it becomes an issue is when someone tries to justify it using reality. If it was proposed simply as "lets add females because that would be fun" Its a completely different argument. If you say "lets add females because its more realistic" it then is open to discussion because it is trying to base it on facts. No one can fault you for what you like, no one can dispute what you like but when you set an argument based on facts its open season. Do I care if females are in the game? No. Just for fun im going to look into how many females have been to free fall, and combat dive school.

Odd as I would have thought that the reality would provide less room to dicuss, as they say a fact is a fact. What we are actually seeing in this thread is people complaining/or not, about the reality in some services and not differentiating between what is, and thier desire to delete or change what is, or even being able to let go of reality a bit and allow a discussion about a game. And of course thier aguments require them to have a basis in reality, ie how many females have been to freefall and combat dive school, as if ArmA is limited to playing as the small percentage of elites coz they're the only ones who kill with a legitimate cool factor.

Way I see it by getting over this relatively simple hurdle (yes its work I know) ArmA suddenly opens up vast mission and story possibilities, not just at militaristic levels but also in terms of paramilitary, resistance and policing. Areas wich in the past and now can be as tough, grueling, and dangerous as any action we could simulate with the current military assets. It opens doors for modders and mission makers and I dont get any argument that goes against that because to do so isn't fun.

[Smurf 12]

suddenly opens up vast mission and story possibilities, not just at militaristic levels but also in terms of paramilitary, resistance and policing.

Good point.

[nodunit 397]

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/languagezone/images/image-39221-web.jpg

To the addon request thread!

Way I see it by getting over this relatively simple hurdle (yes its work I know) ArmA suddenly opens up vast mission and story possibilities, not just at militaristic levels but also in terms of paramilitary, resistance and policing. Areas wich in the past and now can be as tough, grueling, and dangerous as any action we could simulate with the current military assets. It opens doors for modders and mission makers and I dont get any argument that goes against that because to do so isn't fun.

Such as grandmothers versus priests, who doesn't love the idea of playing a mission wherein you are a harmless looking gran that is actually a sort of spy agent or something?

I'm actually being serious by the way, aside from the silly, I agree that it would open up many doors for modding and as an addon creator that is one of the most important things...if well..not THE most.

[Variable 322]

I am a father, brother and son to females, I have played this game since OFP, and I can say that the way women are depicted in Arma 2 is plain shameful. Hookers or grandmas who can't even carry equipment? That's insulting. And that has nothing to do whether women serve in whatever roles in armies. A human can carry a weapon, and women are humans too. Thinking how limiting it is for a scenario generator like arma to fail to represent more than half of the world population should make you all support a proper female representation in Arma 3. It's the interest of all players who see this game as a realistic platform.

Sorry to sound determined, but any objection to the above is misogyny, or superstition.

[scrim 1]

That I agree with, though I believe the hookers are the work of some addon maker who has yet to hit puberty. The other day I attempted to arm a female character by walking up to the crate and selecting a role: The result was no weapon, and an animation was triggered that made the character (controlled by me to a certain extent from this point onwards) run bent over, covering the head with her arms and looking like she was screaming.

[nodunit 397]

Oh no..they weren't the work of any addon maker..the hookers were in Arma 2 (Not operation arrowhead) by default.

I think the reasoning for it was something around the lines of the war had taken its toll and people were having difficulty finding jobs, so some women decided to do what they had to make a living, also serving as informants..whiiich in and of itself isn't such a bad thing since you can't lure them into your van, have sex and then smash their face in with a baseball bat.

But the white knight excuse of "We don't want to see women hurt" Or "we respect women" seemed to fall flat on its face when the very concept is tolerable but having the same character able to use a weapon isn't, as if it suddenly becomes a morality issue.

Say what you want about people being beta, feminist, fascist or whatever. But tell me how it makes sense in any way to-

Spend development time & cost to create an asset with such care to detail and variety http://0.tqn.com/d/compactiongames/1/0/5/f/1/ARMA2-scr018.jpg

but ultimately offers no gameplay and then claim that you do not want to see women in a war zone despite having specifically just put them there.

That you want to "protect" them despite them being just as vulnerable as the player to a bullet between the eyes (which isn't the problem here mind you)

I can't find any logic in it from any standpoint really, in a world wherein they would be purely NPC's then fine, understandable, the player is not MEANT to play as them...BUT you don't even need a mod to access these characters in the editor, and to add salt NONE of these characters be they gran, young, escort or not, can do anything. What is the point in having them there in the first place? So that players passing by can have a nice polygon ass to look at?

http://0.tqn.com/d/compactiongames/1/0/B/f/1/ARMA2-scr024.jpg

Edited June 6, 2013 by NodUnit

[Jex 1]

The celts fought alongside their women iirc

[Smurf 12]

I can't find any logic in it from any standpoint really, in a world wherein they would be purely NPC's then fine, understandable, the player is not MEANT to play as them...BUT you don't even need a mod to access these characters in the editor, and to add salt NONE of these characters be they gran, young, escort or not, can do anything. What is the point in having them there in the first place? So that players passing by can have a nice polygon ass to look at?

http://0.tqn.com/d/compactiongames/1/0/B/f/1/ARMA2-scr024.jpg

Same as wild life, ambience?

[dmarkwick 261]

The more I read about people's outrage and their insistence that BIS have a moral obligation to provide women soldiers, the more I couldn't give a shit. Give them a woman's face if you want it that bad - all that we're here for is the battlefield experience.

[PN11A 2]

Odd as I would have thought that the reality would provide less room to dicuss, as they say a fact is a fact. What we are actually seeing in this thread is people complaining/or not, about the reality in some services and not differentiating between what is, and thier desire to delete or change what is, or even being able to let go of reality a bit and allow a discussion about a game. And of course thier aguments require them to have a basis in reality, ie how many females have been to freefall and combat dive school, as if ArmA is limited to playing as the small percentage of elites coz they're the only ones who kill with a legitimate cool factor.

Way I see it by getting over this relatively simple hurdle (yes its work I know) ArmA suddenly opens up vast mission and story possibilities, not just at militaristic levels but also in terms of paramilitary, resistance and policing. Areas wich in the past and now can be as tough, grueling, and dangerous as any action we could simulate with the current military assets. It opens doors for modders and mission makers and I dont get any argument that goes against that because to do so isn't fun.

You want to talk about what is?

Bohemia interactive is a company from the Czech Republic. Currently in the Czech Republic woman are not allowed to serve in combat. Considering this is the environment where the company exist what are the chances that it has an influence on the outcome? Another thing is it is a game, and they are telling a story ultimately if it is needed to drive the story it will be created. If it is not needed it is foolish to waste time/resources from a small company to produce something that is not needed to tell their story. ARMA is famous for its mod community, the game is not made just for you to mod the writers and director of the game determine what needs to be in it based on what they can afford the time to work on, and that is a fact.

If the game was produced in Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, and Israel the outcome maybe different. That is 8 countries, there are 28 nations in NATO. So "some services" become majority of the services and "what is" is this majority of the nations in NATO do not allow woman in combat. SO unless they tie the main force to a specific NATO country it makes their story less believable. Time is money, and do they have the money, and time to commit to adding an element to the game that does not drive the story?

[BlackLord 0]

Don't blame Bohemia, all this blatant sexism is clearly the work of a wizard alien.

[Nexerius 10]

Why is it so important to have females in the game?

Its not about who you play, is it?

[BlackLord 0]

Why is it so important to have females in the game?

Because it is fashionable these days, "important figures" of gaming "journalism" suggest that it makes you progressive and smart if you pretend to care about stuff like this. It's the hip thing to do.

[nodunit 397]

Same as wild life, ambience?

Hmm.. perhaps BI saw Armed Assault and decide that they didn't want the campaign of the island to be populated by men only, save for the AAN reporter who literally had no skeletal structure.

However wildlife counter purposes ambience in that you can play hunting games in the Armory, and if women were there to be simply ambiance then why aren't the male civilians there for the same reason, why do they function in the exact same manner as a soldier?

Even if it's more of a copying and pasting of skeletons and configurations, why waste the time doing even that?

You want to talk about what is?

Bohemia interactive is a company from the Czech Republic. Currently in the Czech Republic woman are not allowed to serve in combat. Considering this is the environment where the company exist what are the chances that it has an influence on the outcome? Another thing is it is a game, and they are telling a story ultimately if it is needed to drive the story it will be created. If it is not needed it is foolish to waste time/resources from a small company to produce something that is not needed to tell their story. ARMA is famous for its mod community, the game is not made just for you to mod the writers and director of the game determine what needs to be in it based on what they can afford the time to work on, and that is a fact.

If the game was produced in Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, and Israel the outcome maybe different. That is 8 countries, there are 28 nations in NATO. So "some services" become majority of the services and "what is" is this majority of the nations in NATO do not allow woman in combat. SO unless they tie the main force to a specific NATO country it makes their story less believable. Time is money, and do they have the money, and time to commit to adding an element to the game that does not drive the story?

Except that they do have women serving.. http://www.moddb.com/groups/female-soldier-lovers-group/images/czech-female-soldiers1 Now if you wish to pick at the specific point of "In combat" then sure that might be true. One of the focusing countries is the US, and if the story is the same then we're not doing so hot at all in which case rules could be changed, but I'd rather not get into that before someone starts chest thumping statistics and doctorine.

Because it is fashionable these days, "important figures" of gaming "journalism" suggest that it makes you progressive and smart if you pretend to care about stuff like this. It's the hip thing to do.

Know what else is hip, and always is? Generalizing everyone.

Edited June 6, 2013 by NodUnit

[PN11A 2]

Hmm.. perhaps BI saw Armed Assault and decide that they didn't want the campaign of the island to be populated by men only, save for the AAN reporter who literally had no skeletal structure.

However wildlife counter purposes ambience in that you can play hunting games in the Armory, and if women were there to be simply ambiance then why aren't the male civilians there for the same reason, why do they function in the exact same manner as a soldier?

Even if it's more of a copying and pasting of skeletons and configurations, why waste the time doing even that?

Except that they do have women serving.. http://www.moddb.com/groups/female-soldier-lovers-group/images/czech-female-soldiers1 Now if you wish to pick at the specific point of "In combat" then sure that might be true. One of the focusing countries is the US, and if the story is the same then we're not doing so hot at all in which case rules could be changed, but I'd rather not get into that before someone starts chest thumping statistics and doctorine.

Know what else is hip, and always is? Generalizing everyone.

Im choosing "in combat" because that is all ARMA is, I personally have not see anyone doing any real support roles. Why are you trying to ignore that? I agree we dont need to get into the argument about US policy and doctrine lets keep it about this game specifically. Is there roles in arma outside of combat? Pilots sure we can make woman models for diversity of pilots wether you use them for that or not whatever. Is that enough to devote the resources to creating those models?

Disclaimer: I do not reject my sisters in military service. I have had the pleasure of serving with some really squared away hard charging woman my post and opinions in this thread do not reflect those woman.

Edited June 6, 2013 by PN11A

[nodunit 397]

Im choosing "in combat" because that is all ARMA is, I personally have not see anyone doing any real support roles. Why are you trying to ignore that? I agree we dont need to get into the argument about US policy and doctrine lets keep it about this game specifically. Is there roles in arma outside of combat? Pilots sure we can make woman models for diversity of pilots wether you use them for that or not whatever. Is that enough to devote the resources to creating those models?

Disclaimer: I do not reject my sisters in military service. I have had the pleasure of serving with some really squared away hard charging woman my post and opinions in this thread do not reflect those woman.

I wasn't so much ignoring as much as not having thought of it like that. You're right..aside from transport and air support, most support roles are automatic, re-arming, refueling and so on.

About the female pilots I would say that depends on wether or not they are creating a female model in the first place and already have the gear, since by then it's just a matter of bringing over the gear.

It's not as though they have to alter the chest for weighting, or change how they move since said pilot would be sitting still. The male civilian comparison essentially, why devote time to them?

Why even make the female characters in the first place if they can't do anything in contrast to their counterpart?

I'll put this out there..my arguement is not for female soldiers in particular, Arma 3 could ship with an all male military and I wouldn't make a peep, even if there were no female guerilla fighters. Sure it would be neat to see as a further distinction between the established military powers but it's not something I would demand they add in.

My stance is purely and soley on the civil area, if the system links were in place then people could expand on that and create the female soldiers they want instead of looking for workarounds. (however that is not why I stand by this view)

What bothers me at the very core of it all is why female civilians are utterly pointless to have ingame as opposed to male civilians. This is why I took on Smurf's ambiance reason.

It is a good one but a bit slippery since male civilians are not treated in the same manner, afterall why would a male civilian be any more likely to grab a weapon?

In the end it comes down to this..if you're going to have an asset that mirrors another IE male soldier and male civilian, then should not the female be just as capable?

I wouldn't argue with a livestock vs livestock discussion, a chicken versus a cow because they are in the same group, serve the same purpose and are as capable as the other.

Edited June 6, 2013 by NodUnit

[PN11A 2]

Agree'd I think it would be retarded not to have the Females in a civilian role. I would not limit them to civilians and not being able to bear arms thats just dumb. I say put it there in a capacity that makes sense and leave it to the community to run with it, we use the civilian men as agents and conduct urban recon alot in my arma unit.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Agree'd I think it would be retarded not to have the Females in a civilian role. I would not limit them to civilians and not being able to bear arms thats just dumb. I say put it there in a capacity that makes sense and leave it to the community to run with it, we use the civilian men as agents and conduct urban recon alot in my arma unit.

Yes, just yes.

[scrim 1]

Cool, biggest concensus across the opinion lines so far in this thread.

[joseph 1]

Girls usually get votekicked off pretty fast....... The only experience I've really had was in Tf2 and she was the admin. I was so mad I couldn't kick her ass off the server. Sgt. Joseph

[bigred88 10]

Girls usually get votekicked off pretty fast....... The only experience I've really had was in Tf2 and she was the admin. I was so mad I couldn't kick her ass off the server. Sgt. Joseph

Your a douche.....

But why does this topic even need to be spoken about? Who cares if theirs women in it or not, im not playing to see the females, im playing to kill shite!

If they want to add women into it, good on em, if they dont, well who cares? get over it i say